Sandhu Amandeep Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Read the full judgment text of CAMP 104/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 November 2021.

1. On 15 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”)  dismissing the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Bruno Chan dated 22 September 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

Cited by 2 cases

Case No.CAMP 104/2021[2021] HKCA 1568
Court
Court of Appeal
Date04 Nov 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CAMP 104/2021

[2021] HKCA 1568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 104 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 647 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

  SANDHU AMANDEEP SINGH Applicant
  and  
  TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD 1st Putative
Respondent
  DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION 2nd Putative
Respondent

________________________

Before:  Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions:  5 October 2021
Date of Judgment:  4 November 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 15 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Bruno Chan dated 22 September 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 21 September 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats his complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance, a matter which has been already dealt with in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the CA Judgment, and in paragraph 6 of the Judge’s Decision dated 1 April 2021 refusing to grant to the Applicant an extension of time to appeal.

3.Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance.

5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

(Thomas Au) (Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 104/2021